The difference between commoners and royals or nobles was that the latters had access to better education and manners due to their status. Nowadays almost everybody can have access to these things that can model you into a nobler being, so I don't think the problem is that commoners marry into the royal family. The problem might be when they forget that people are expecting more from them. It is not enough to be a normal, down-to-earth person if you are a royal. You have to set a positive example for others-and when royals fail to do it, they usually get a second chance but when a commoner married into the royal families fail to live up to expectations, they are torn apart.
And yes, I agree you have to maintain an air of dignified mistery if you're royal, otherwise you end up being a celebrity who is doing everything to keep people interested in their persona.
I kind of blame Prince Philip(who was a prince marrying into a royal family) with his 1969 documentary about the Royal Family,he really opened up Pandora's box with that. It was like a Big Brother show.

The gene pool of eligible partners would be awfully small if royalty still had to limit themselves so narrowly when choosing a partner. It is not healthy.
Maxima is a very intelligent woman who has been a good partner for W-A.
I have nothing but respect for Daniel, I think he will be for Victoria what Philip has been for Elizabeth. I think Meghan changed her life to adhere to the "rules for royalty" I don't think she'll embarrass the BRF.
They have conducted themselves with more class than much of the so called nobility does that I think you believe are suitable.

I've never really understood the criticism of the 1969 documentary. The Scandinavian monarchies, Denmark especially, have made several close up documentaries but still being able to maintain their private lives and without loosing the sense of magic surrounding the institution. If anything I'd blame the Wales & York debacles during the 80s-90s for creating a royal Big Brother show.
Regarding Dukes often voiced opinion regarding the marriages of the modern day royals I do agree to an extent that in the end the status of the royal families will be affected when they continue to marry just about everybody.
That said there are commoners and there are commoners - as I remember it was said by a man on the street in Oslo interviewed by Swedish TV around the time of Haakons marriage to Mette-Marit:"There is no need for any set-up marriages to an European princess but there has to be some standards. We have prominent Norwegian families that could provide good matches for the Royal family like the Haraldsens did 30 years ago." Sofia has behaved impeccable since she married Carl-Philip and is together with Daniel huge assets to Sweden and the Royal family but in the end, in my opinion, it weakens the institution to have photos of one of its members
bare-chested with a snake.

Given Jeremy Corbyn is in charge of the Labour Party right now and a bit of a republican, what would this mean for the British Royal Family if he became prime minister right now? Even though he as stated he wouldn't try to fight for a referendum on the monarchy you can't help but wonder if this would give republicans like Graham Smith more legitimacy as a viable option for the UK. Ignoring Brexit and other things, once again what would a prime minister Jeremy Corbyn mean for the Royal Family? Keep in mine opinion polls are showing Labour in the lead right now.

They have had republic PMs before but they know there is no way a referendum would be successful at the moment as support for the monarchy has been consistent for most of the last century and a half at over 75%. There was a dip in the 90s to under 70% but it never dropped below 60%.

In Australia, for instance, we have a republican PM and he is from the Liberal (Conservative side of politics) but he knows a referendum wouldn't get up at the moment. Both sides of politics here have basically accepted it won't happen until after the Queen dies. Current support for a republic here is lower than it has been since the mid-90s and remember we have already rejected a republic once.

With a royal wedding in the offing Corbyn knows that a referendum wouldn't be successful even though it would be his personal desire.

The next election in the UK isn't necessary for 4 years and a lot can happen in that time. It is not unusual for the polls to be against the government mid-term.

They have had republic PMs before but they know there is no way a referendum would be successful at the moment as support for the monarchy has been consistent for most of the last century and a half at over 75%. There was a dip in the 90s to under 70% but it never dropped below 60%.

In Australia, for instance, we have a republican PM and he is from the Liberal (Conservative side of politics) but he knows a referendum wouldn't get up at the moment. Both sides of politics here have basically accepted it won't happen until after the Queen dies. Current support for a republic here is lower than it has been since the mid-90s and remember we have already rejected a republic once.

With a royal wedding in the offing Corbyn knows that a referendum wouldn't be successful even though it would be his personal desire.

The next election in the UK isn't necessary for 4 years and a lot can happen in that time. It is not unusual for the polls to be against the government mid-term.

Thanks, even though I try to remain optimistic about the whole cause for a constitutional monarchy I can't help get worried about what I deem the slightest upset to the system. I understand that Royal Family is popular with 7 or 8 out of 10 Britons usually in favor but still I can't help but get worried at times. But yes a lot can happen in four years.

-Frozen Royalist

P.S. Truth be told I get worried a lot over even the most minor of things.

Why worry? If the monarchy in the UK comes to an end, it will be because the people of the UK don't want it any more..or possilbly because the RF don't want to go on with it. Its their decision.. and It will hardly cause any harm to anyone.

Just a really odd question. Should it ever happen that the monarchy is abolished, any clue what they'd call the UK then?

__________________
No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.

Mostly the country is referred to as GB now so why change what many people think is the country's name?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frozen Royalist

Thanks, even though I try to remain optimistic about the whole cause for a constitutional monarchy I can't help get worried about what I deem the slightest upset to the system. I understand that Royal Family is popular with 7 or 8 out of 10 Britons usually in favor but still I can't help but get worried at times. But yes a lot can happen in four years.

-Frozen Royalist

P.S. Truth be told I get worried a lot over even the most minor of things.

I do find it interesting that someone who lives in a republic would really get worked up about the possibility of the remaining constitutional monarchies in the world changing to what you have.

Certainly I expect a few of the Queen's remaining realms to follow the majority of the countries of which she was Head of State when she ascended the throne to be republics quite early in Charles' reign. I don't think George will be King of more than maybe 3 - 4 countries and possibly only the UK.

In my opinion the UK monarchy is the safest of all European monarchies, Liechtenstein and Monaco aside. But all monarchies are vulnerable and have to find their way to be an added value to (and for) society.

The danger is the domino effect when in one of the monarchies a referendum will be held. When Sweden holds a referendum, you can set your clock on similar demands and online petitions in the Netherlands, Belgium of Spain: "If the Swedes can speak out about their form of state, why can't we? Does the Government not trust the will of their own people?"

But Britain society is so complex. The state structure is so complex. When even something like a House of Lords (a totally unelected legislative body) is tolerated, the British monarchy is as solid as a rock.

Prince William and Prince Harry are the most liked members of the Royal Family since modern records began, exclusive research reveals today.
The caring Princes have overtaken the Queen - and are now more liked than their own parents were over thirty years ago.
They also share with the Monarch the highest approval ratings of any Royals, indicating high public approbation for the way they carry out their duties.
The findings by Ipsos MORI in a poll for the Evening Standard are a triumph for the modern approach established by the young heir and his brother, who swept away stuffy manners to bare their emotions in public.
William is the most liked, named unprompted by 62 per cent of Britons.
The level of public affection is even higher than that recorded for his mother Diana, Princess of Wales, which was 45 per cent in 1984 and 47 per cent in 1994.

A remarkable poke in the eye for any republicans hoping for a waning of support for the monarchy in Britain in coming decades. This is very pleasing, especially coming from this polling company which certainly can't be accused of conflating approval figures for the monarchy!

Personally I think everything will work out for Prince Charles when he becomes king. He might not be as popular as QEII but I think he'll do a decent job. Plus we do have Prince William after him and keep in mind the Prince of Wales is a little old (I know members of the House of Windsor tend to live a long time but still).

Personally I think everything will work out for Prince Charles when he becomes king. He might not be as popular as QEII but I think he'll do a decent job. Plus we do have Prince William after him and keep in mind the Prince of Wales is a little old (I know members of the House of Windsor tend to live a long time but still).

-Frozen Royalist

If he lives as long as even his father he has another 26 years or more. He could be on the throne for more then 20 years.

And I who was afraid that the ridiculous Duchy of Lancaster Paradise Papers thing (in November last year) was going to damage the Queen's popularity, but that has not happened at all.
Her admired numbers are up from 2016 - and her Ipsos MORI/YouGov approval/favourability ratings are still between 80 and 90% (as they've been since 2002).

--------------------

Let's go through the previous ''YouGov most admired'' persons in the UK figures:

2016:
Among the 30 most admired women:
1. The Queen with 19.5%.
7. Kate with 3.6%.

Among the 30 most admired men:
1. Stephen Hawking with 13.2%.
4. Harry with 6.4%.
6. William with 5.6%.

2015:
Among the 15 most admired women:
1. The Queen with 17.0%.
5. Kate with 5.2%.

Among the 15 most admired men:
1. Stephen Hawking with 14.8%.
5. William with 6.5%.
8. Harry with 5.9%.

2014:
Among the 30 most admired persons:
1. The Queen with 18.74%.
9. William with 2.6%.
19. Kate with 0.80%.

--------------------

Let's go through the ''YouGov most admired'' persons figures in some of the Commonwealth Realms:

Canada:

2018:
Among the 27 most admired women:
1. Michelle Obama with 12.60%.
2. The Queen with 9.90%.
7. Kate with 4.10%.

Among the 26 most admired men:
1. Barack Obama with 15.10%.
7. William with 5.80%.

2016:
Among the 22 most admired women:
1. The Queen with 10.2%.
8. Kate with 4.7%.

Among the 29 most admired men:
1. Stephen Hawking with 8.5%.
9. William with 4.3%.

Australia:

2018:
Among the 30 most admired women:
1. Michelle Obama with 10.30%.
2. The Queen with 8.40%.
7. Kate with 4.40%.

Among the 30 most admired men:
1. Barack Obama with 10.50%.
7. Harry with 4.10%.
9. William with 3.90%.

2016:
Among the 23 most admired women:
1. The Queen with 10.9%.
9. Kate with 4.2%.

Among the 25 most admired men:
1. Dalai Lama with 11.4%.
6. William with 6.5%.

New Zealand:

2018:
Among the 27 most admired women:
1. The Queen with 10.9%.
9. Kate with 4.2%.

Among the 30 most admired men:
1. David Attenborough with 13.40%.
7. William with 4.30%.
10. Harry with 3.50%

2016:
Among the 30 most admired women:
1. The Queen with 9.6%.
6 Kate with 4.7%.

Among the 30 most admired men:
1. David Attenborough with 10.8%.
7. William with 5.3%.
12. Harry with 3.1%.

--------------------

Let's go through the ''YouGov most admired'' persons figures in some other countries:

Germany:

2018:
Among the 30 most admired women:
1. Michelle Obama with 11.30%.
2. The Queen with 9.10%.
4. Queen Silvia with 5.00%.
No royal men made it to the poll.

2016:
Among the 30 most admired women:
1. The Queen with 8.5%.
5. Queen Silvia with 4.2%.
17. Kate with 2.0%.
No royal men made it to the poll

USA:

2018:
Among the 30 most admired women:
1. Michelle Obama with 13.20.%
3. The Queen with 5.80%.
No royal men made it to the poll.

--------------------

Let's go through the ''YouGov most admired'' persons in the world figures:

2018:
Among the 20 most admired women:
1. Angelina Jolie with 8.2%.
4. The Queen with 6.0%.

Among the 20 most admired men:
1. Bill Gates with 9.9%.
No royals made it to this poll.

Well because I couldn't find a thread on popularity in commonwealth realms, I'll just have to put this bit of information right here. According to recent polls, the popularity of the monarchy is now at an all time high in Australia, the Prime Minister of New Zealand expects her nation to become a republic within her lifetime and as for Canada, there's just the usual squabble that the monarchy makes Canada not independent.

Can somebody tell me how the House of Windsor makes Australia, New Zealand and Canada not independent countries? I mean they have their own militaries, their own parliaments, their own currencies, their own ways of conducting foreign affairs, their own national football and rugby teams and of course their own national identities. Honestly I found that argument to be one of the weakest and most, pardon my French, idiotic when you think about it.

While we have a Head of State who lives on the other side of the world and can't even bother turning up anymore (due to being too old to travel to see us) we can't be truly independent.

When their is an official visit to this country and their is a toast to the Head of State 'God Save the Queen' is heard - or at least the first few bars.

We can't be truly independent while we share a Head of State with a foreign power.

The problem for republicans in Australia is that they can't agree on the type of republic we should have.

It will happen. The support for a republic in Australia, in last week's poll, was at 50% and 55% if Charles is to become King. It always drops when there is a major royal visiting and Charles was here last week. Even though support for the republic is at its lowest level for a generation it is still at 50%. Support for the monarch is not also at 50% though but at 39% with 11% undecided.